Controversial Opinion: Blizzard Disrespects Lore & and Warcraft History

[Arikara]

no, making it 'from a titan pov' IS the mistake
U need a solid ground to build ur story, wow sabotaged its own

that certainly didn't help

but Chronicle was a mistake primarily because of the awful sixway cosmic forces chart nonsense that retcons so much and takes away all future interesting nuance

[kranur]

I agree 100% with u, i was just saying i think they ruining old lore to make their 'new' lore better, here in egypt if u hire a new electrican for example mid-way fixing ur apartment, he must say how bad the old one was to show himself in far better light, same strategy

- - - Updated - - -


no, making it 'from a titan pov' IS the mistake
U need a solid ground to build ur story, wow sabotaged its own

Ahh gotcha. That happens all over the world though haha.

[Dhrizzle]

This is just how it's always been. Warcraft stories are based on having some cool key moments then torturing the overall narrative to thread them together.

[Donkeywing]

A bad lore event does not necessarily permanently dmg the lore of warcraft. A lot of ppl knew the ending of cata was extremely bad at the time (dragons being phased out for a very long time) but it wasn't permanently damaging the core lore in a way that was unrecoverable. Lots of events are like this, the personal distaste of the mob blinds them to think this is an unrecoverable lore mistake.

In my opinion the most damaging turns in the story have been the expansion of race/class combos to the point where they dont make sense (troll paladins, nelf mages). Its actually ridiculous in some cases, and permanently damages the core lore forever. It significantly devalues existing orders.
Another point is the creeping power levels for no apparent reason, like jaina being able to conjure up a magical broadside volley from a floating warship, or the celestials in mop (like wtf was that and where were they when the world was ending). They have a real knack for power creep in lore somehow.

Beyond that I would say the lack of development of existing orders/factions has been very bad for the lore. A good example here is the belfs (or blood knight order for that matter), who as a whole, have had very little meaningful development/insights after tbc (more than a decade), even though a random fanfiction writer could probably expand that section of lore by himself in a couple of weeks. Instead we get lore of the current-expansion factions which becomes irrelevant in a year or two, like the swamp or desert ppl in bfa. There's so much potential in the existing lore but its not utilized.

[StillMcfuu]

I would say the biggest issue is it seems a lot of current lore comes off more as devs trying to make their own mark, but it's coming at the detriment of established lore. I can appreciate the sentiment of ownership, but find a new IP or make your own game if these are the hard lore shifts you want to do. It's like going to work for Ferrari and trying to make everything like porsche. One of the selling points is the chance the car could catch on fire. Current wow is more marvel try harding than traditional dnd/Warhammer fantasy rpg, people are here for the latter, if we want the former we will dive into that fandom.

[Kent088]

Agree with your points. Power creep in particular is horribly damaging - How the hell is she seemingly as powerful as Aegwynn, who had to take the power of multiple high ranking mages to get that strong?

I wish they had only really expanded hunters out to Humans and Undead, Dwarf Mages, and Troll Warlocks(maybe). People applaud the Dwarf Warlocks and Shamans but that's dumb; Dwarves were specifically fantasized around Ironforge. The whole "Oh well we just got taught this magic" is such a lame reason.

I think I only don't agree on Blood Knights. Paladin in Warcraft used to mean specifically Silver Hand/Argent Dawn Knights. And all their class abilities and quests were centered on that. But yeah, if they felt like they absolutely had to do it, there should have definitely been way more development on the topic.

[Jamais]

The lore in WoW has always been hit and miss for me, since Vanilla.

Yes, WC3 lore was better, but I as one poster mentioned, it was done by the "old guard" which is the main culprit behind scandals that has shaken Blizzard last year. It cannot be ignored.

I usually like zone specific arcs ( in my opinion, shadowlands zone stories were ok) but the way they tied them up in the main narrative has obviously been...less then ideal.

Honestly, with the last 3 ingame cinematics, they have partially managed to salvage SL story, even though the dmg had been done. Better to leave it on a higher note.

I am cautiously optimistic about DF. It is their chance to introducude more nuanced, local stories combined with open world exploration. Ironically, the reviled borrowed power concept actually comes handy in that way - by losing a great portion of char power, ot makes more sense that our chars can return to more "grounded" adventures.

[Kallisto]

no, making it 'from a titan pov' IS the mistake
U need a solid ground to build ur story, wow sabotaged its own

A Titan PoV who can see everything through time.

AmanThul knows everything that happens in the physical world, everything that has happened and everything that will happen in the correct timeline. This is why the bronze dragons exist to keep that timeline intact.

[Khaza-R]

Yes, WC3 lore was better, but I as one poster mentioned, it was done by the "old guard" which is the main culprit behind scandals that has shaken Blizzard last year. It cannot be ignored.

Not to derail, but all of the people let go by Blizzard for said scandals joined Blizzard during the development of WoW or shortly after and had no part in creating WarCraft III.

[Encaitar29]

The post seems like OP lost intrest somewhere along the way, detailing their dislike for Blood Elves in the Horde for few paragraphs, but neglecting a huge issue of Eredar retcon, which was the actual and first time Warcraft turned into World of Retconcraft and started going steadily down that slope into what we have today.
If you spent so much time detailing expansion which generally was ok in terms of Lore (except for the Eredar retcon) and neglect atrocities of WoD or Shadowlands, it feels a bit like the intention of the post is again "High Elves for the Alliance" (which now you effectivly have and is one of the reasons why WoW lore is so bad because Blizzard bent the universe again to appease the fans).

Not to mention Eredar retcon could've been salvaged by Blizzard if they read the manual for Warcraft III before Blizzcon and the announcment and just instead of making the Draenai the uncorrupted Eredar by choosing not to side with the Legion, they could've simply been Eredar defectors who turned to the Light. But that would require them to actually have Warcraft nerds overseeing Story department and that wasn't the case even back in TBC (not to mention now, when some of the people in charge feel like they didn't play any Warcraft game for a long time, let alone be lore nerds).

The class fantasy on the other hand isn't much of the problem - it's the execution of it. Particular priest and paladin orders aren't the problem - it's the in-game lack of flavour between them. Spells could have varied visual effects base on races, classes could have additional bracket next to it like "Sunwalker [Paladin]" or just share colours so you'd know that they are the same class gameplay wise but not lorewise - as lorewise, they are not. Same goes with class exclusiveness. TBC Lore pretty neatly explained both the Draenei Shamans and Blood Elf Blood Knights - the issues is again the loss of flavour along the way.

And in the end it all goes down to money. Getting more developers, writers and artists really isn't the issue for multi-million dollar company. It's lack of will from the shareholders to actually not profit that much from everything and just giving barely enough to make the game function is.

[Nathreim]

I don't think thats controversial Blizz regularly ruins its lore and characters. Alex purposely ruined Sylvanas just to get at Danuser and the rest of the writers.

[Kent088]

Disagree, its actually reverse. Draenei implementation was merely improperly executed, and race-class combos are fundamental.

Draenei, if implemented, did not need to be anything other than a Draenor native race that inhabited areas left alone by the Orcs. They are highly intelligent and have an affinity with Light magic, Arcane, and Shamanism (No Naaru)(But notice Light =\= Church of the Holy Light). They are small in number but were able to grow after the depopulation of Draenor. When the Legion invaded, it largely did not care about the Draenei, seeing them as inconsequential, and ultimately going to be destroyed or enslaved; The focus was Azeroth. When the planet was torn apart the Draeneis advanced magical abilities shielded only a part of Outland, the amber plains of Farahlon and some of Nagrand. In their show of defiance, they have been battling what scattered forces of the Legion remained since that fateful day.

This is a minimally impactful lore piece, and in fact, is not really a retcon, but an expansion of Outland lore. No "Draenei are Eredar", Spaceships, or Naaru. Just a neutral faction bent on doing whatever it takes to survive.

Class combos aren't just around implantation, they are foundational. Many don't see that because Blizzard has made every combo a named NPC, but the races being so limited made sense considering their histories, cultures, and magical affinities. Expanding that too much has reduced the very specific story unique to each class, and why those classes are featured over other ones.

[Shadowferal]

That isn't a controversial opinion. That's the consensus of the Warcraft fandom.

Well, I certainly believe it. I've long complained that the lore needs a rewrite in a big way.

[Dhrizzle]

I would say the biggest issue is it seems a lot of current lore comes off more as devs trying to make their own mark, but it's coming at the detriment of established lore. I can appreciate the sentiment of ownership, but find a new IP or make your own game if these are the hard lore shifts you want to do. It's like going to work for Ferrari and trying to make everything like porsche. One of the selling points is the chance the car could catch on fire. Current wow is more marvel try harding than traditional dnd/Warhammer fantasy rpg, people are here for the latter, if we want the former we will dive into that fandom.

First up you know Blizzard hired these people to write for WoW, right? They could hardly take the job then turn around and say they were just gonna write something completely different and leave the next expansion with no story. That isn't how employment works.

Secondly WoW has always felt more like a comic book world than Warhammer, and Marvel in particular with the Titans being a carbon-copy of the Celestials and the time travel leading to parallel universes. The "new guard" might be fleshing out the comic-book style cosmology but they are following a template laid down by Metzen.

[El Gucaragua]

--- snip ---

Controversial?

Mod Edit: Don't quote a long post in its entirety for a one-word response.

[vizzle]

Even more controversial opinion: it's fine to disrespect the legacy of art if it was made by abusers, their enablers or protectors

I hope you're prepared not to enjoy anything made before the year 2000.

[A Chozo]

"hey guys, controversial opinion: wow lore bad, blizzard is incompetent"

how can you say something so courageous yet so brave? and on mmo-champion forums, notorious for being such a big fan on Blizzard!

this thread is next gen on shitposting.

- - - Updated - - -

Alex purposely ruined Sylvanas just to get at Danuser and the rest of the writers.

you can't prove the purpose but we sure as hell know he personally wrote Sylvanas until he got fired.

[Aresk]

It's not clear to me from this initial post what is meant by respecting and thus by disrespecting lore.

• Does disrespecting lore imply changing the fundamental way the narrative is approached and written? Given the original founders of the lore introduced retcons whenever they felt it made the story better, the more recent narrative designers doing the same seems to be keeping with the spirit of the franchise.
• Does disrespecting lore imply making retcons to it, thus overwriting what came before? If so, then yes, there was never any respect for the lore after its initial release.
• Does disrespecting lore imply altering the tone set by the story? Then yes, I think that things have drastically changed since the tone of WC1, which took itself relatively seriously and had generally darker graphics than WC2.
• Does disrespecting the lore imply a fundamental shift of vision for themes, narrative arcs, and the like? If so, then I think it could go either way. I think the current writers do believe that the stories they're developing are the best things for the franchise and are keeping with general strokes that were established for the characters, but I also think that--particularly given the diversity of the fanbase--there are players unhappy with these decisions who would want to see the story go another way. While I would say that the writers may have failed in their treatment of the lore in some regards, I don't think it was done out of disrespect for the lore; moreso, I think it speaks to their own disconnect from some elements of the fanbase.

[Toppy]

It's not controversial at all, it's spitting straight facts. Steve Danuser and crew have been detrimental to the Warcraft lore.

Its funny to me that you think, Warcraft, the series that has SEVERELY retconned from their second game on, has ever put much thought on their world building and setting. Gigantic retcons has been standard from the start and Danuser didnt start it, he continued it.

- - - Updated - - -

The lore in WoW has always been hit and miss for me, since Vanilla.

Yes, WC3 lore was better, but I as one poster mentioned, it was done by the "old guard" which is the main culprit behind scandals that has shaken Blizzard last year. It cannot be ignored.

I usually like zone specific arcs ( in my opinion, shadowlands zone stories were ok) but the way they tied them up in the main narrative has obviously been...less then ideal.

Honestly, with the last 3 ingame cinematics, they have partially managed to salvage SL story, even though the dmg had been done. Better to leave it on a higher note.

I am cautiously optimistic about DF. It is their chance to introducude more nuanced, local stories combined with open world exploration. Ironically, the reviled borrowed power concept actually comes handy in that way - by losing a great portion of char power, ot makes more sense that our chars can return to more "grounded" adventures.

Warcraft 2 going into 3 was loaded with retcons.
3 into WoW, loaded with retcons.

One game had some ok, tropish as hell, writing, doesnt mean they respected or had direction for the lore. They had direction for the immediate game, which they then stopped caring about.

[Eggroll]

It isn't controversial at all.

I think it was Ion himself who said it in an interview or a blue post back at around the beginning of BfA i think.
Something along the lines that they wouldn't care to keep within the boundaries of the current lore.

The current devs regard the legacy of lore they have inherited not as a gift but as a read headed step child they want to get rid of.
Petty losers.